I am dumbfounded...

[Deerthug]

After reading several threads about the Sandy Hook tragedy and gun control I am dumbfounded with all the personal attacks, insults and mudslinging that is being hurled on this forum.

The fact remains that there are 26 people dead at the hands of a person who as of now we don't know the reason or motive behind this brutal tragedy other than the fact that he was mentally unstable. This is not the first time and we all know that sadly it will not be the last time something like this will happen.

Good points have been made on both sides of the argument for and against more gun control. With all the arguments going back and forth I know one thing for certain, there is one common denominator - both pros and the antis do not like hearing or seeing events like what happened on Friday or this past summer in the Aurora movie theater and in the Sikh temple in Wisconsin or the mall in Oregon just this past week. Just today some guy was arrested for threatening to set his wife on fire and then shooting up a school for goodness sake.

With that common denominator in mind, rather than tossing insults, don't you all think that actually coming up with a solution or several solutions which some on here have already suggested, so that we can come to some sort of compromise that will appease both sides to prevent these tragedies in the future? Isn't that the common goal we all want to achieve?

The pro-gunners' argument usually hinges on arming everyone in the country and the anti's argument usually hinges on doing away with all guns in this country and allowing only the government to possess firearms. These arguments have gone in circles and have not done anything to prevent these tragedies.

I think we all agree that there is not just one cause to the problem our society is facing that is resulting in these mass murders. There are several root causes among them a combination of which include lack of interest or care by parents in the home, broken homes, violence on TV, in movies and in video games, and mental illness which is abundant in our country and often times difficult to detect let alone control.

So where and how do we begin? I am not sure where or how but firstly, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that we need to stop the mudslinging and insults against one another - that is just going to get us nowhere.

Secondly we need to address and deal with the root causes mentioned above. Even though I'm a strong proponent of the 2nd amendment and I will defend my right as well as those of fellow responsible gun owners to own firearms to protect ourselves and our families, there have to be some checks and balances in place to prevent mentally unstable people from having "access to" weapons of any kind. We've all heard it before and we will continue to hear it said that gun control laws do not get illegal guns off the street - they just prevent law abiding citizens from protecting ourselves.

With that also in mind although the guns that were used in the Sandy Hook massacre were legally purchased and registered to the mother who was a gun enthusiast, doesn't being a responsible gun owner mean making sure that your guns are locked up and inaccessible other than to you when you are not present and especially when you know you have a family member who has a known mental illness living in your home? Shouldn't those gun owners who find themselves in that situation be held accountable (except of course this kid's mother who can't be held accountable anymore as she was the first one killed)? Now putting aside the disgruntled employees who shoot up their workplace, isn't it usually the "quiet ones" or "socially awkward ones" that are the ones committing these vicious crimes for no apparent reason? Why are we as a people doing anything more to keep them in check?

As we all know when we purchase long guns like the one used in the Sandy Hook tragedy, we have to go through somewhat of a background check. Maybe that background check should be a little bit more thorough to be able to weed out those with mental illnesses and those who have mentally ill members living in their home. Why shouldn't there be a follow up check for those who fill out the paperwork and who mark "no" when asked if there is a history of mental illness in one's family? Why are gun dealers taking people's word for it instead of having the ability to investigate further? Moreover, just like there is a registry once you become a convicted felon, or a terrorist on a do not fly watch list, or a sex offender on a registry, why shouldn't there be a registry for those who have been diagnosed with mental illnesses? There will be those who will be offended by this suggestion, but to bring you all back to reality, one common denominator had between most of these past shooters is mental instability and easy access to firearms. I'm not saying that there should be or there shouldn't be such a registry, but there needs to be some kind of stronger checks and balances system in place that will ensure that firearms do not fall into the hands of mentally unstable people.

Maybe we should allow law abiding citizens, who are mentally stable, and who are properly trained to handle a firearm to be able to carry. As we already know and many of us agree, these shooters always target a place where the victims are defenseless, i.e. theaters, schools, churches, temples and the like. We certainly never hear of or read about a shooter targeting a police station. Maybe just maybe if these shooters knew that there was a possibility that one or more persons in the school, the theater, the temple, or the mall was carrying, they would think twice about carrying out their plans. I just read this morning that in a school in Texas, teachers are permitted to be armed provided that they go through the proper channels for obtaining a CC permit for their state/county. Why are there less acts of violence like theses in states where the right to carry is more prevalent? Because these punks know that they will meet with armed resistance.

There is no right or wrong answer to any of the foregoing. But if we all want these tragedies to end, then there needs to be a plan of attack put into place. The insults and mudslinging need to be put aside and "we the people" including politicians, hunters, liberals and conservatives, pros and antis need to bang our heads together until we come up with a solution. Until this is done, these tragedies will continue to happen well into the future.

[nyslowhand]

Agree with you 1000%!

On CNN the other day there was a staff consultant that was a retired Nassau police officer. He was making a suggestion & CNN cut him off. Basically, he though permit holders & legal gun (handgun) owners should have their application and living circumstances reviewed perodically. No more - simply apply, get the background check and then accumulate guns the rest of your life unquestioned. Another option (IMHO) migh be for pobably the ATF to have a database of legal gun owners that could be cross checked with medical & prescription records. I got my permit decades ago and I'm pretty sure they have no clue if I'm residing with a felon, undergoing psychiatric help, an addict or taking anti-depressants. This would inclue any individuals residing where the guns are kept.

We just had a small local gun shop out in the middle of "nowhere" get robber, 60+ mostly handguns stolen. Should they make the facilities that sell guns abide by more strict security/building codes? I think so.

Problem is, gun owners are not willing to make any concessions to avoid what was described above. I can foresee in the future all guns will be checked into an armory/local PD and signed out for a single 24hr useage, then checked back in. More than likely won't solve any of the fore mentioned issues, but some might think it would control them better. If, as gun owners we can't come up with legitimate suggestions and possible concessions - They'll strike down the 2nd admendment.

[First-light]

Well said Deerthug. Thank you

[pewlodar]

I am dumbfounded in that someone breaks a laundry list of laws meant to stop actions like this and the first thing people want to do is add more laws and restrictions. The people committing these crimes could careless what is supposedly in place to stop them. They plan and strategies to create the maximum impact with weapons available to them.

The quantity of ammo or type of weapon typically not the limiting factor in ended the event. The events ends when the coward out end decide to eliminate themselves. It is about controlling the event to them. How many end it themselves with unused weapons and ammo readily available?

There is not a law you can pass that will stop a indifferent person who has zero regard for human life from carrying out a their plan for their final self gratification and final control.

[Doc]

First of all, I don't believe there is anything in this thread that has not already been mentioned in the other thread.

Second, we are all assuming that a lot of these things are not already being done. In the other thread, I was informed that mental health records are already a part of gun registration.

Third, apparently we have some sort of background check for long guns already because a few weeks back I went to Gander Mountain and purchased a .270 bolt action and the salesman accessed a back-ground check site on his computer. Now what extent this check goes to is a mystery to me since I was not aware that long guns were subject to such a background check. So as far as I know there already is no reason for mentally deficient people to have any kind of legally purchased gun (pistol or long gun). Can they improve the system? .... maybe, I don't know. I'm assuming that when they designed the program, it most likely accessed all the background info that is available. So I'm not sure that there is really anything to be added there. expanding the background check to include family members who are not even involved in the application may very well have constitutional and privacy implications.

As far as the societal improvements, I would guess that if there were a way of reversing the rot that is systemic in our society there probably would have been some movement in that area already. After all, the problems involved in those areas these days is hardly a secret and it has been known and understood for decades. Most of the barriers involve constitutional interpretations that fortunately keep the government at bay in terms of controlling our personal lives in a truly invasive fashion.

So, I am as interested as anyone in a brain-storming session of ideas, but the only ideas that I ever see coming on this subject involve just one narrow segment, that being the elimination of guns or super restrictive regulations of law abiding gun owners.

It's nice to call for unbiased discussion, but I have yet to see any new ideas. Of course creating multiple threads on the subject serves no function other than to water down the discussion.

Yes, emotions run high on these kinds of discussions. There are people who are very deeply entrenched in their opinions because this is not a new debate. We can try to keep the passions contained, but don't expect miracles....lol.

[Nomad]

Maybe we should allow law abiding citizens, who are mentally stable, and who are properly trained to handle a firearm to be able to carry.

We don't already ? I've carried most days for close to 30 years, with my Utah and Fla. permits I'm good to carry in 38 states .

[Doc]

Problem is, gun owners are not willing to make any concessions to avoid what was described above. I can foresee in the future all guns will be checked into an armory/local PD and signed out for a single 24hr useage, then checked back in. More than likely won't solve any of the fore mentioned issues, but some might think it would control them better. If, as gun owners we can't come up with legitimate suggestions and possible concessions - They'll strike down the 2nd admendment.

Maybe you should change that statement to: the gun owners are not willing to make any more concessions. History is littered with the failed brainchilds of the antis. Many which represent harrassments to legitimate gun owners rather than constructive restrictions aimed at real solutions. It is time to end this constant assault against gun owners. The problem of criminal violence can not be solved on the backs of law abiding gun owners. First because they don't work, and second it just plain is wrong and anti democratic in their approach.

Yes, I think the the gun owners have conceded plenty over the years and it never is enough because it is the wrong end of the problem. It is designed to harness the law abiding and ignore the "slap-on-the-wrist" administration of existing laws. In other words, the efforts of the antis is focused on the law abiding while at the same time creating more permissiveness and loopholes for the law braekers. And then we sit around all "dumbfounded" that we are in the situation that we are in. The fact is that it is this kind of backward campaign against the law abiding that results in one more reason for keeping the reasonable access to weapons for self protection. The incremental path to private firearms removal has got to cease and work put toward criminal control where it belongs.

[Doewhacker]

Deerthug I saw you referenced the shooter as mentally ill, I have not read that he was in fact mentally ill although obviously what he did would lead us to think he was. I have read how ever that he was on the Autistic spectrum and possibly diagnosed with a specific type call Assbergers. This is not a mental illness and no amount of gun control will ever stop a person like him from getting a gun. We just never know when a person is going to snap, those close to him might get an idea that he was unstable and those are the people that prevent these things from happening.

To me this could have been prevented with personal responsibility by the mother and any one that felt he was about to have an episode, and speaking as a father of a child on the spectrum, the signs of a meltdown are clear as day from 10 miles away.

[Deerthug]

There is not a law you can pass that will stop a indifferent person who has zero regard for human life from carrying out a their plan for their final self gratification and final control.

I agree but this is why we need to have not laws but some stronger checks and balances to weed out those mentally unstable persons who are indifferent with no regard for human life from carrying out their plan using a firearm. But if a person is hell bent on committing an evil act they will find a way to do so whether they use an AR, hangun, bomb, knife, slingshot or box cutter "ala" 9/11.

[Deerthug]

Deerthug I saw you referenced the shooter as mentally ill, I have not read that he was in fact mentally ill although obviously what he did would lead us to think he was. I have read how ever that he was on the Autistic spectrum and possibly diagnosed with a specific type call Assbergers. This is not a mental illness and no amount of gun control will ever stop a person like him from getting a gun. We just never know when a person is going to snap, those close to him might get an idea that he was unstable and those are the people that prevent these things from happening.

To me this could have been prevented with personal responsibility by the mother and any one that felt he was about to have an episode, and speaking as a father of a child on the spectrum, the signs of a meltdown are clear as day from 10 miles away.

Since this event is still unfolding we still do not know whether this kid had some mental instability other than Aspergers that caused him to snap and do what he did. But looking back at the Aurora shooting it came out that the shooter was actively treating with a psychatrist for a mental dsorder and didnt't he tell his Dr about his plan to some extent?

I totally agree that the parents or guardians are in the best situation to see the signs and take the proper steps to get them treatment and more importantly control their access to firearms in the house. Since this kid killed himself and his mother who may have been the only source from whom investigators could have obtained details about his life, I don't think we will ever know why.

[Early]

Re: Mental Illness....Read the following; it is both enlightening and frightening

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl3%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D246506

[Deerthug]

Re: Mental Illness....Read the following; it is both enlightening and frightening

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl3%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D246506

Thank you for posting this link.

[sits in trees]

categorizing people with mental illness and wether they should be allowed to own a gun or not is easier said than done. mental illness has many facets and to set a standard that anyone once diagnosed or treated for mental illness will be sort of branded will stop many people from ever seeking any treatment at all. to say that the government should be allowed to have access to what meds your on is not only illegal but just wont sit well with many people. you will find that there is no easy fix for these mass shootings at schools, malls, movie theaters. maybe we will just have to end up in a total police state like someone suggested in another thread and have an armed cop at every place a where people gather. but where does that end and who will flip the bill for that? no easy answers, very tough problem?? one thing for sure these events are horrible and well covered by the media but your chances of being killed by a madman at a shopping mall are about as good as you winning the powerball lotto.

[Doewhacker]

Re: Mental Illness....Read the following; it is both enlightening and frightening

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl3%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D246506

Welcome to a part of my world. The lady who wrote that should have gotten her son checked into a health care facility long before. My son went in when he was 6, and was getting treatment for a full year before things got real difficult and he had to be checked in, he still goes to a counselor and physcologist and we make sure he gets the help he needs. He will never have free access to the guns in our home nor will he have access to knives. It's part of being a responsible parent.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Doewhacker

[Doewhacker]

Since this event is still unfolding we still do not know whether this kid had some mental instability other than Aspergers that caused him to snap and do what he did. But looking back at the Aurora shooting it came out that the shooter was actively treating with a psychatrist for a mental dsorder and didnt't he tell his Dr about his plan to some extent?

I totally agree that the parents or guardians are in the best situation to see the signs and take the proper steps to get them treatment and more importantly control their access to firearms in the house. Since this kid killed himself and his mother who may have been the only source from whom investigators could have obtained details about his life, I don't think we will ever know why.

Several of the last few shootings that come to mind had instances where people knew the shooters had serious issues and nothing was done to prevent them. Jared loughner, the Aurora shooter, I think the Virginia tech shooter, all had made waves and raised questions yet nothing was done to get them the help that may have prevented them from carrying out these horrific acts.

I call for civic responsibility over new laws.

[Huntingbum]

hum.... not sure there is anything else to say. I will never side with more laws, its obviously NOT working..... and is counterproductive.

[Nomad]

When I picked up the permit forms for my oldest daughter on her 21st Birthday, I was surprised to see a whole page on,"have you ever been treated for X, have you ever seen a consular for X, does your family have a history of X and on and on.

We have unrestricted carry here btw and they always did a check with some mental health agency, now they added awhole slew of new questions . This was a year ago .

The part that worried me was this, both my kids are "high achievers". The oldest got her BA Suma Cum Laude , and the younger one has even even higher GPA and takes 18 credits per symester. They both saw consulars for stress at school, and one has/had a phobia she saw someone about. So they have to answer yes.....

How about your a 4.0 student worked 3 jobs over the summers, never even got a traffic ticket, did volunteer work for years including over seas, but a little stress over grades may keep you from a permit . Even though they have hunting lic. and 870's.......

Its not as easy a line to draw as one may think.

[Deerthug]

categorizing people with mental illness and wether they should be allowed to own a gun or not is easier said than done. mental illness has many facets and to set a standard that anyone once diagnosed or treated for mental illness will be sort of branded will stop many people from ever seeking any treatment at all. to say that the government should be allowed to have access to what meds your on is not only illegal but just wont sit well with many people. you will find that there is no easy fix for these mass shootings at schools, malls, movie theaters. maybe we will just have to end up in a total police state like someone suggested in another thread and have an armed cop at every place a where people gather. but where does that end and who will flip the bill for that? no easy answers, very tough problem?? one thing for sure these events are horrible and well covered by the media but your chances of being killed by a madman at a shopping mall are about as good as you winning the powerball lotto.

You are absolutey correct that it is easier said than done. But as it was said before the responsibility lies with those who are close to the shooter. I think Morgan Freeman said it well which was posted on another thread that the media tends to emphasize their coverage of the shooter, and trying to figure out the why and what could have been done to prevent the tragedy rather than the victims. This just adds more fuel to the fire for other unstable people to "one-up" the last massacre. You say your chances of getting killed by a madman in a mall are about as good as winning the lotto - I bet the residents of Newtown thought the same thing before this past Friday.

[MountainHunter]

I appreciate your intention Deerthug. We are on the same page.

[erussell]

Its an easy fix! Less entrances to the school, metal detectors on the doors and an armed gaurd at each door. Its that way for most government buildings. But your children are not worth the expense and the time to them so it will never happen.

[josephmrtn]

do away with violent video games/tv shows!!!!

[shawnhu]

Several of the last few shootings that come to mind had instances where people knew the shooters had serious issues and nothing was done to prevent them. Jared loughner, the Aurora shooter, I think the Virginia tech shooter, all had made waves and raised questions yet nothing was done to get them the help that may have prevented them from carrying out these horrific acts.

I call for civic responsibility over new laws.

Lawsuits in this country prevents any civilian or officials to take action without following the proper protocols.

[erussell]

do away with violent video games/tv shows!!!!

It is pretty hypocritical of main stream media isnt it! On CBS, FOX OR NBC the news crews are lamenting and over sensationalizing the tragedy while hrs later you can watch mass murder, and glorification of such murders on their own channels. They call for a ban on guns, well how about you first ban the glorification of violence on your own channels . Violent video games and movies do nothing but desensitize one to such violence. And we wont even get into the filth and degredation on the pay channels. Garbage in garbage out.

Edited December 17, 2012 by erussell

[HuntOrBeHunted]

It's hard for people to voice what they think when the topic is so touchy. Then you throw a few anti's that come around just to stir things up and is a forum war.

They are taking any stab they can at getting are guns. Some of you say they don't want to take them ok, truth is they want to take 50% of them. If you own a AR and they pass a new ban law it suddenly becomes illegal for you to own. They want to make it so we can't have anything more than a 10 round mag.

And it's not looking good for us as gun owners that like what rights we still have.

[bubba]

legislation being introduced today to ban assault weapons. I guess they strike when the iron is hot. The media has been playing on everyone's emotions to get enough support to get it passed. Where are all the nobama wont take your guns guys now? Oh yeah sitting back grinning, or hiding their guns.